Suppose that because the State violated the NAP by imposing its power and force upon me, that I wanted to retaliate through protest, vandalism or otherwise (basically anything other than boycott). Now suppose this obviously hurt other people in the process. For instance, I protest on their property, or wind up interfering with their work or business. Or let's take it a step further and say that in my violent retaliation, they were somehow impacted (perhaps some trash got on their lawn, or worse, their house or building went on fire or something). How does the State violating the NAP - thereby justifying my resistance - justify my putting undue hardship on innocent bystanders who did not necessarily consent to me fighting tyranny on their behalf? In other words, I'm not denying my right to fight the system, but how would one justify this impact on others? Surely it's been done in the past; for instance there were loyalists during the American Revolution who supported England, and too damn bad lol. But I'm looking for a way to articulate this effectively. Thanks in advance.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

How does the State violating the NAP - thereby justifying my resistance - justify my putting undue hardship on innocent bystanders who did not necessarily consent to me fighting tyranny on their behalf?:

They have already violated the NAP. Their justification will first stem from their original justification to oppress you. They will take it a step further and use security as a justification to stop you. On both sides the bystanders are just collateral damage.

On the gov side they have the damage to the innocent bystanders as rhetoric to drum up support. You on your side have the atrocities committed on the original violation of NAP as material to drum up support. In addition you get to justify the collateral damage of innocents as either they deserve it since they are not part of the solution or supportive of the gov....the end justifies the means.

This has and is playing out since the beginning of time. From time to time you get the Gandhi's and King's that don't believe the gov's violation of NAP justifies the damage to innocents and take on the burden of getting the h beat out of themselves as a form of resistance. Fighting the violation of NAP by maintaining NAP.

Fighting a violation of NAP by violating NAP is 100% ends justifies the means.

I mean, I don't really care. I'm not going to crusade against this...but I can't help noticing the dumbness of it. This is the philosophy section. Things like this really don't have anything to do with philosophy. This isn't intellectual. There's nothing legitimate to argue about except whether it makes any clear point about Libertarians being dumb. Which it doesn't. This is the sort of lowlife mudslinging that news pundits and politicians resort to that ostracize any hope for real political discussion. It's an area where, at least most the time and where it's appropriate, I expect better from DDO.

I mean, I don't really care. I'm not going to crusade against this...but I can't help noticing the dumbness of it. This is the philosophy section. Things like this really don't have anything to do with philosophy. This isn't intellectual. There's nothing legitimate to argue about except whether it makes any clear point about Libertarians being dumb. Which it doesn't. This is the sort of lowlife mudslinging that news pundits and politicians resort to that ostracize any hope for real political discussion. It's an area where, at least most the time and where it's appropriate, I expect better from DDO.

The State aggressed against those people by making them human shields. If you can avoid harming them at negligible cost, you should, makes allies of them and whatnot. But if they are useful shields, you are under no obligation to respect them as a shield. A shield is an instrument of the aggression against you. It thus violates the fundamental reason for the NAP-- the prevention of aggression against you.

Now, because they are instruments and not agents, this means you better start leaving them alone again once the agents are outta the way, because the fundamental reason for the NAP is restored.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.